Gov Guam v. Torres & O'Keefe

Opinion

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 5

6 )

GOVERNMENT OF GUAM, 7 )

Plaintiff, )

CASE NO. CV0454-12

8 )

v. )

9 )

10 HELENE TORRES and EVELYN )

O'KEEFE, in their capacities as CO- ) DECISION AND ORDER II ADMINISTRATRIXES OF THE ) Re: Motion to Dismiss 12 ESTATE OF JOSE MARTINEZ )

TORRES, and THE ESTATE OF JOSE )

13 MARTINEZ TORRES, ) 14 )

Defendants. )

IS

16

17 INTRODUCTION

18 This matter came before the Honorable Alberto C. Lamorena IlIon August 6, 19 2012 on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Assistant Attorney General William C.

20 (hereinafter, Bischoff represented the Plaintiff, Government of Guam 21 "Government"). Defendant Helene Torres was represented by Attorney F. Randall 22 Cunliffe. Defendant Evelyn O'Keefe and the Estate of Jose Martinez Torres 23 (hereinafter, "Estate") were represented by Attorney Joseph Razzano. Having 24 considered the parties' arguments and the applicable law, this Court now issues its 25 Decision and Order. 26 FACTUAL BACKGROUND 27 Government filed its complaint on April 11, 2012 for two causes of action: one 28 in which it seeks to quiet title to two parcels of land in Dededo and another seeking

Decision and Order Case No. CV0454-12

a declaratory judgment that actions taken by the Government and conveyances of 2 the parcels are ultra vires. Defendants O'Keefe and Estate filed their answer on 3 1Vlay 2, 2012. On June 21, 2012, Defendant Torres file her motion to dismiss 4 pursuant to Rules 19 and 12(b)(7) of the Guam Rules of Civil Procedure for failure

5 to join certain parties. Defendants O'Keefe and Estate joined in the motion on July

6 17, 2012. Based on the applicable law and circumstances of this case, this Court

7 finds that denial of Defendant's motion is appropriate.

8 DISCUSSION

9 Plaintiff seeks to quiet title to Lots 5001 and 5002 in Dededo, Guam. The IO Government alleges that the lots were transferred from the United States 11 Department of Interior to the Government of Guam in 1950, the transaction 12 recorded with the Department of Land Management as Instrument No. 25219.

13 According to the Government, the lots were transferred to the Chamorro Land 14 Trust Commission in 1994, recorded as Instrument No. 517404.

15 The lots were subsequently transferred to the Guam Ancestral Lands 16 Commission in 2002 and recorded under Instrument No. 666056. The Government 17 alleges that this transfer was done knowing that the lots were not "Ancestral 18 Lands" as defined in 21 G.C.A. § 801011 and was done in order to benefit an estate.

19 In 2004, the Lots were transferred to the Estate of Jose Torres. It is the 20 Government's contention that the transfer of the Lots to the Guam Ancestral Lands 21 Commission and the subsequent transfer to the Estate were done ultra vires and 22 that title should be quieted in favor of the Government.

23 Defendant Helene Torres filed for dismissal pursuant to Rule 19 and Rule 24 12(b)(7) of the Guam Rules of Civil Procedure; a motion in which Defendants 25 O'Keefe and Estate join. Defendants contend that because Government is seeking 26

27 I The section defines "Ancestral Lands" as those lands owned privately by residents of Guam on or after 28 January 1, 1930.

3

Decision and Order Case No. CV0454-12

to declare actions taken by then-Governor of Guam Carl Guiterrez and those of the 2 Ancestral Lands Commission void, then the Commission and the Office of the 3 Governor of Guam are necessary parties to the litigation. It is Defendants' 4 collective position that because the Commission and the Office of the Governor are 5 not defendants in the action, the Court cannot properly litigate the matter. 6 An absentee is needed for just adjudication when one of the following three 7 circumstances exists: (1) in the person's absence complete relief cannot be accorded 8 among those already parties, or (2) the person claims an interest relating to the 9 subject of the action and is so situated that the disposition of the action in the 10 persons absence may (i) as a practical matter impair or impede the person's ability

11 to protect that interest, or (ii) leave any of the persons already parties subject to a

12 substantial risk of incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations

13 by reason of the claimed interest. Benavente v. Taitano, 2006 Guam 15 ~ 58 (quoting Guam R. Civ. P. 19(a».

14

15 A. Analysis of Rule 19(a)(1).

16 Under the express terms of the 19(a)(1), the focus is on the relief between the 17 parties to the present action, and not on the possibility of further litigation between 18 a party and the absentee. Id. ~ 59 (quoting Morgan Guar. Trust Co. v. Martin, 466 19 F.2d 593, 598 (7th Cir.1972». In the present case, if Plaintiff Government should 20 prevail on the merits, Defendants would be obligated to relinquish their claim to the 21 lots. On the other hand, if Defendants should prevail, Plaintiffs claim to the lots 22 would fail and Defendants retain title and possession. Therefore, complete relief 23 can be accorded to those already parties. 24 B. Analysis of Rule 19(a)(2)(i).

25

26 Under 19(a)(2)(i), the Court must first consider what the absentee's interests are, if any. Then, the Court must consider "as a practical matter, will a judgment 27 impair or impede the absentee's ability to protect that interest." Benavente ~ 62. It 28 is Defendants' position that the Ancestral Lands Commission and the Office of the

4

Decision and Order Case No. CV0454-12

Governor of Guam need be joined in the action to afford complete relief under Rule 2 19. 3 It appears the Commission could have an interest in the lots, however 4 remote, as it is the entity that conveyed the land to Defendants and could possibly 5 be the party with title after litigation. This does not end the inquiry, however.

6 Government argues that the Ancestral Lands Commission lacks the statutory

7 authority to sue or be sued in its own name. An examination of Chapter 80 of Title

8 21 of the Guam Code Annotated, the Commission's enabling statute, shows an absence of such authority and waiver of immunity.

9 It is then left to the Attorney General to bring forth and defend claims on the 10 Commission's behalf. "The Attorney General is the public prosecutor and, by 11 himself, a deputy or assistant, shall conduct on behalf of the government of Guam 12 all civil actions in which the government is an interested party." 5 G.C.A. § 13 30109(c). The Attorney General also has the duty to "[b]e diligent in protecting the 14 rights and properties of the government of Guam." 5 G.C.A. § 30109(f).

15 Thus, the Commission's interests are adequately represented by the Attorney 16 General acting on behalf of the Government of Guam. A judgment would not impair 17 or impede the Commission's ability to protect that interest. A similar analysis is to 18 be made regarding the Office of the Governor of Guam. It is the view of this Court 19 that any interest the Office of the Governor of Guam may have is adequately 20 represented by the Attorney General. 21 C. Rule 19(a)(2)(ii) Analysis.

22

23 Under Rule 19(a)(2)(ii), the court must assess whether a disposition of the

24 action without the absentees may leave "any of the persons already parties subject to a substantial risk of incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent 25 obligations by reason of the claimed interest" of the absentee. Thus, the relevant 26 inquiry under (a)(2)(ii) is whether joinder is necessary to avoid harm to any of the 27 persons already parties. Benavente,r 74.

5

Decision and Order Case No. CV0454-12

As discussed supra, this Court finds that the "absentees" in this case, the 2 Office of the Governor and the Ancestral Lands Commission, have their interests 3 represented by Plaintiff. Any future litigation on their part would be barred by the 4 doctrines of claim and issue preclusion. Thus, the risk of "double, multiple or 5 otherwise inconsistent obligations" is greatly reduced. There is nothing before this

6 Court which would show that any other parties may have an interest in the

7 proceedings. As such, it is the view of this Court that joinder is not necessary to

8 avoid harm to any of the persons already parties.

9 CONCLUSION

!O

11 Neither the Ancestral Lands Commission, nor the Office of the Governor of 12 Guam are necessary parties as contemplated in Rule 19(a). Full relief can be 13 accorded among those already parties. Failure to join the Commission or the Office 14 of the Governor would not impair their ability to protect their interests. The risk of 15 double, multiple, or inconsistent obligations to those already parties is minimal. 16 This Court therefore finds that dismissal for failure to join a party under Rule 19 is 17 inappropriate under the facts and circumstances of this case. Defendant's motion to 18 dismiss is hereby DENIED. 19

20

21 It is SO ORDERED this 19th day of Dece 22

23

24

1

HONORABLE ALBERT ORENA, III 25

26